Religion and Politics: hand in hand

Religious Influence on Politics and Political Influence on Religion: A Comparative Study

Even in countries such as the United States, which recognize the necessity of a separation between church and state, there will always be interaction between religious and political leaders. It seems to be an unavoidable result of the way most societies work, and it is foolish to imagine that politicians will be without religion, or religious leaders without politics. Both fields claim idealism and purport to seek ways in which to better our society. However, a cynic such as myself can find many ways in which individuals use either or both of these systems in order to gain power. I will admit to some bias, as I am an atheist, but I naturally recognize and tolerate the right of the individual to and from any religion of their choice provided the religion is not simply a play for political
power.

Before delving into a topic, however, it seems best to clarify what exactly I mean by a “religion”. In this node, the term “religion” refers exclusively to recognized formal religions and not to the idea of “civil religion”, which is related to nationalism. Specifically, a civil religion is a form of national self-worship (Schoffeelers 20). This topic will not be covered in this paper—instead I will discuss nations and their relations with formal church systems.

However, when one examines the relationship between church and state, invariably there is a controlled
party and a controlling party. In the case of Nazi Germany, the state was undoubtedly the controlling party. Unsurprisingly, Hitler used his
secret police and methods of terror to manipulate the Catholic leaders of
Germany, including the murder of Erich Klausner, the Bishop of Berlin, for his refusal to agree to German demands (Scholder II:197).

One such occasion was the Decree of 23 Jan 1918, which removed the right of the
Orthodox Church to be recognized as a legal person, the right to own property, and the right to teach
religion in schools. The Soviet policy at the time was to disseminate anti-religious propaganda and firmly separate
church and state (Walters 6). The key difference between the Soviet seperation and the American seperation was one of implementation: the American way is to build a fence, the Soviet way is to define a line, which, if crossed, results in execution. For the most part, the Soviet government was tolerant of
Protestantism and Islam, which tend to push a stronger work ethic; but the
Orthodox Church bore both these sects’ share of hard times.

In 1922, the government began to try to promote a schism within the
Orthodox Church. May 1922 saw the growth of a group called the “Renovationists”, a sort of Communist/Catholic hybrid which took over the leadership of the
Orthodox Church. It is generally accepted that Trotsky aided this coup (Walters 9). By 1923, the flow of propaganda from the government had slowed. Religion was not so
persecuted with the Renovationists in control of the Orthodox Church, and Protestants and
Muslims continued to enjoy their loose reins.

But in 1929, Stalin took absolute control of the country, redoubling the anti-religious sentiment against any and all sects (Walters 15). He banned performance of
religious services in unregistered buildings, conducting evangelistic activity or religious educations, printing of religious material, and fundraising. Religious groups were now no longer free to produce responsory
propaganda to counter the Soviet propaganda blitz. The clergy, who were considered “non-working elements”, were subject to immense
taxation, discrimination in housing, and deprivation of Social Security rights (Walters 13). But, after
World War II, the anti-religious government backed off again, restricting their attacks on religion to words alone until Stalin died in 1953 (Walters 18).

Then, after Stalin’s death and Khrushchev’s ascension to power, religious persecution once again rose (Walters 22), with a torrent of propaganda that was unmatched by that of any other period in Soviet history. Under
Khrushchev’s leadership, propaganda stopped appealing to the educated, and became much more shallow and crude. Anti-religious filmmaking also became popular. But when
Brezhnev took power, the anti-religious crusade finally began to taper for the last time (Walters 23). Except for a brief hiccup early in
Gorbachev’s reign (Walters 33) the anti-religious sentiment decreased continually until the end of Soviet rule in the early 90’s.

Obviously, in this case, the state controlled the church. Strict laws and regulations concerning what could and could not be done in the Soviet Union limited the ability of its citizens to worship as they wished. But it should be noted—even at the peak of Soviet religious persecution, execution and imprisonment were rarely if ever used. The peak number of imprisoned religious “criminals” was only 411. Generally, the extent of implemented anti-religious sentiment was merely a large quantity of anti-religious
propaganda—the Soviets simply stole the Protestant idea of handing out
tracts.

China and Christian Missionaries. In the early 1920’s, a wave of Christian missionaries moved on China. They viewed themselves as bringing
enlightenment to an unhappy and unfulfilled people, judging the Chinese by Western standards that simply did not apply to an
Eastern civilization. Their firm belief in their Christian tradition wouldn’t allow them to even consider the possibility that the Chinese were more than happy without the Christian faith (Lutz 12). The prime source of the anti-religious sentiment, however, was the same as that of the Soviet Union—the
communist philosophy of Marx and Lenin.

And the major hotbed of the socialist view was the school. The
Socialist Youth Corps would be the group that brought anti-religious views into the mainstream in China. Ch’ih Kuang, one of their leaders of this group, condemned
Christianity as a “narcotic used by capitalists and as a source of conflict and intellectual oppression.” (Lutz
56)

We return to the question “Which controls which?” and here, in 1920’s China, the answer is not as simple as would seem.
Missionaries set out to control China, but China fought back by restricting their rights in later years, banning parochial schools (Lutz 229), and
heavy taxation—essentially following the early Soviet model. Was this strike by China warranted? It’s a matter of personal
religious opinion, most likely.

Iran and Islamic Law. Until now, we have examined situations in which the government controls churches and clergy by strictly limiting rights, increasing taxation, imprisonment, and even in the case of
Nazi Germany, through stealthy execution of dissidents. But there are many other governments in which the religion has either a “finger in the pie”, so to speak, or even a
death grip on the national government. Iran is one such country.

Iran has only been experiencing some struggle between church and state for about eighty years. But this is primarily because for most
Islamic sects, there is no recognized division between “church” and “state”. (Savory 129) They are in fact one and the same, the ruler of the region a divinely selected leader in the eyes of the masses, much as
Louis XIV of France was the “Sun King”. Islam is the universal religion of
God on earth, and only an Islamic government can represent God properly (Habiby 141). Islamic law is a primitive social system, to be sure, but it is also a more stable system than the
Christian governmental system made so popular in the Dark Ages, proved by the fact that strong
Islamic law government still exist today.

Under Khumayni, freedoms were promised to all who did not attempt to undermine the
Islamic “Republic”. He criticized the Shah for “granting” freedoms instead of recognizing them, much as the
Soviets did. Oil would be sold to everyone but Israel (their Jewish enemies), but not at Iran’s expense.
Iran would no longer be the slave of imperialism (Habiby 149). To some extent, these observations were correct. American interests had been taking advantage of
Iran.

Industrialization was to proceed unhalted, so long as they were balanced by the
moral and ethical values of the Holy Qur’an. But Khumayni’s ultimate opinion was this: “Those who forbid
science and knowledge in the belief that they are safeguarding the Islamic religion are really the enemies of that religion… there is no incompatibility between science and knowledge and the foundation of Islamic
faith.” (Habiby 150)

In the case of Iran, we see religion clearly dominant, running the government. It is, however, a truly
populist movement, fighting in defense of Islamic tradition against American intervention in the area. Unlike the
now-defunct Afghanistani Taliban, Iranian law is generally tolerant to those who practice a different faith, so long as they do not attempt to publicly convert
others.

In the last 10 years, we have seen our political spectrum take a step to the right, with our current President,
President George W Bush, even pushing for an office to donate large sums of money to
religious charities and asking the opinion of religious leaders and not doctors on important scientific matters such as the use of
stem-cell research, which could be a potential source of new medical breakthrough.

So in the United States, the government is strictly prohibited from controlling religion. That leaves only the opposite. To a minor but significant extent,
religion controls the United States. Religious differences were the main forces behind the emigration of
Europeans to the New World in the 1500’s; we are descended from those who believed so strongly in their faith that they risked a long and dangerous sea voyage for it. Is it any wonder that Americans allow religion to creep into every aspect of their
lives?

Conclusion. In almost every government, there is some sort of power struggle between religion and government. Either a government seeks to repress religion in order to emphasize some abstract governmental theory
(China, Russia), or uses it in order to promote its own governmental ideology
(Nazi Germany). Or, a religion may be so dominant in a society that a populist revolution occurs, installing a religious leader
(Iran). Finally, a religion may use the government in order to push a religious agenda
(United States). In each of these situations, the theoretical “wall of seperation between church and state” would be very beneficial to both church and state—neither would seek to usurp power from the other. The United States’ wall is currently the strongest, but even a strong wall of seperation will leak to some degree.

Religion and politics in India

Taking an understanding of politics as 'public affairs' and 'government', it is obvious that religion cannot be separated from politics, particularly in a democracy: the belief systems and cultural base from which voters, activists, campaigners or politicians come will affect the way in which these people govern or are governed. In India, the world's largest democracy, this is no exception. The religious divide and tensions between the two major religions present in the country – Hinduism and Islam – naturally lead to an increased prevalence of religious issues in the political arena, over and above those which would occurr 'naturally' – despite the secular clauses of the Indianconstitution. In order to consider why religion is such an important issue in Indian politics, this interreligious divide and its effect on politics must be considered. In addition, the nature of these religions should be examined in order to understand what influence their individual forms have on politics.

Origins of the religious divide

The divide between Muslims and Hindus in India dates back to far before indepedence: during the Mughal rule the religions were considered ideologically opposed – during Iletmish's reign Nuriddin described the Hindus as “idol worshipping who are the worst enemies of God and the Prophet”. Muslim nationalism began to develop as a result the pan-Islamic awakening: the Muslim League was founded in response to the threat to Islam in Turkey (the great Islamic powers of Morocco and Persia were crumbling, therefore hopes were pinned on Turkey to lead the Muslim world) in the Great War era. Rather pro-Muslim historian Misra claims that at this time “Hindus constituted neither a religious nor political community.” Although perhaps an exaggeration, it is correct that Hindu identity as a force developed later than did the Muslim: according to Misra “The rising tide of Musim revivalism dictated the necessity of organising Hindus into a distinct political community”. This, although true to a degree, underestimates the effects of the indepedence struggle on Hindu identity, however the fact that Muslim identity developed prior to a Hindu or pan-Indian identity gives insight into the origins of the divide: the Muslim community under the British saw themselves as part of something larger, of an outside force working for a new Muslim power, and in response to this 'threat', Hindu identity began to develop. In response to this, Muslims began to assert themselves more as they felt “submerged in a Hindu sea.” The British exacerbated this fear and divide by “using the Muslims as a couter-blast to the nationalist movement.”

Religious identity politics

The advent of communal disharmony prior and during indepedence and partition increased levels of suspicion between the communities: a report by the Indian National Congress ('INC' or 'Congress') stated that “the course of events that led to independence had filled people's minds and hearts with such distrust and suspicion of one another that communal harmony could not be the immediate outcome...” Contrary to this pessimistic outlook, within a decade Nehru had created a “pluralistic and non-communal” Congress Party under a secular constitution. The 'catch-all' nature of Congress meant that divisions were temporarily inhibited: the presence of 43 million Muslims in India made it impossible for the INC to base its ideology in a particularly pro-Hindu manner, and Nehru himself marginalised religion within politics – although this does not deny that at a more local level in India's federal system that religion played a part. The divide between the religions however, still existed. The idea of “religious identity politics” pervades, particlarly following the rule of the Janata party in the late 1970s: the Janata regime greatly propagated “interest based associations” rather than political motivation based upon religion or ethnicity. However, not even a change of regime could shake the deep mindset of religious affiliation – “Caste and religious identity politics shattered the myth of shared values based on the secular agenda of interest based associations.” This religiously based affiliation created 'ready-made' groupings of voters and political opinion. It has been said, for example, that Nehru's secularism was an attempt to hold the 'Muslim vote' yet not alienate the 'Hindu vote'. Vote by religious identity lead to the development of religious based parties, such as the Hindu Nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), who have a 'prefabricated' voting base, thus bringing religious issues directly into the political arena.

Religious identity and government

The divide of religious identity creates distinct issues for politicians to deal with – either as a legal issue, or as a necessary action for political survival. The famous 1985 'Shah Bano case', in which a divorced Muslim woman was granted maintenance by the Supreme Court, which is not in accordance with Sharia law. The outcry of “Islam in danger” lead to the then Prime MinisterRajiv Gandhi denouncing the Supreme Court's decision in order to keep the support of traditional Muslims. This naturally led to another outcry from secularists and more progressive Muslims, placing R. Gandhi in a rather difficult situation. Religious issues therefore create political problems for governments: another example of such a problem is the Ramjanmabhoomi – Babri Masjid affair, where Hindus claimed a temple that marked the birthplace of Lord Rama had stood where there was then a Muslim mosque. The dispute had become so heated that the mosque had been locked up and left. However, in the late 1980s the Vishwa Hindu Parishad (VHP) launched a campaign to destroy the mosque and resurrect the Hindu temple. This eventually lead to the destruction of the mosque by a mob, which in turn caused riots in which 300 people were killed. The government's failure to act on the whole issue lead to the BJP withdrawing support from the weak National Front government, effectvely forcing the Prime Minister VP Singh to retire. In this instance, the lack of action concerning a religious issue, as opposed to action taken as in the Shah Bano case, lead to problems for politicians.

Secular constitution

India has secular clauses in her constitution: Article 25 states “subject to public order, morality and health and to other provisions of this Part (Part III of the Constitution) all persons are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and the right freely to profess, practice and propagate religion.” This secularism is necessary for the government in power to have legitimacy with each side, however, more than just constitutional secularism is necessary – as Shourie (in favour of a fundamentally secular India) states “The basic problem... is not any particular law, but in the pusillanimity of the State, in its willingness to enforce laws that already exist.” This is demonstated by the aforementioned issues, whereby inaction or (perhaps) improper action taken has lead to large problems for the legitimacy of the government involved.

Hindu nationalism

In contrast to the secularism of the constitution and of Congress, there are many elements of Indian society that want neither the constitution, nor politics to be secular. The most prominent of these forces is the Hindu nationalist ideology, which has become incresingly prominent since the demise of Congress. The strength of this force and its ideological basis naturally brings religion forth as an issue in politics, as the movement of 'Hindutva' – 'Hinduness', and India as a Hindu nation is highly politicised. Kochanek describes the Hindu population as “a majority with a minority complex”, which explains the determination with which the ideals of Hindu nationalism are pursued. Hindutva itself explains Hindu nationalism as such: “The Hindus are tied together by bonds of a common fatherland, ties of blood, a common culture and civilisation, common heroes, common history and above all, the will to remain united as a nation.” The main Hindu nationalist party, the BJP (who are currently governing India) has many branches and affiliated organisations throughout Indian society, the most notable of which is the militant Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Such is the prevalence of Hinduist ideology, that today the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad is the largest student union in the country, and the Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh the largest trade union. Both of these organisations belong to the RSS 'family'. Heywood describes the link between religious nationalism and politics: politics being “secondary to the 'revealed truth' of religious doctrine... Political and social life should be organised on the basis of what are seen as essential or original religious principles...” In this way, it can be seen that the prevalence of politically strong Hindu religious nationalism in India will naturally be detrimental to the Muslim, Christian and other minority groups.

Hindu caste system

The nature of Hinduism itself also has implications for the Indian political system: the complex Caste arrangement means that India's Hindu community is not a “unified religious bloc”, but a network of different associations and groupings. These groups can be used as a source of political support: the deep set caste mindset whereby one cannot marry out of caste, and one's social placing is defined by caste and so on, leads to 'ready-made' voting bases for politicians. Misra notes the development of this from the time of independence: “...The prospect of parliamentary government in the years to come encouraged caste groups to use the extended frachise to promote their particular interests.” A prominent example of this is that of the Dalits – the 'untouchables' – who developed their own political parties and networks, shifting their loyalty from Congress. The state has begun to accommodate this by implementing positive discrimination policies for Dalits – such as the 22.5% quota of government positions which must be filled by members of this populous caste – thus demonstrating the power of caste politics. Voting within one's caste is also attributable to the nature of Hinduism: the somewhat fatalistic tendencies of the religion lend itself to acceptance that what is 'given' to the caste is what is deserved, therefore accepted and agreed with: “There is a quality of resignation, of passiveness and fatalism, in this religious belief that has manifested itself in the political attitude of many Indians who simply accept the government they have as the one they deserve.” The caste divisions within Hindu politics is perhaps benficial to the minority groups as it prevents thorough unification of the Hindu voters – weakening the nationalistic drive which tends to be confined to the upper caste Hindus from the north. When examining the future of Indian politics, American political scientist Rudolph concludes “Hindu nationalists must craft a much more inclusive Hindu nationalist ideology if it has any hope for success.”
The divide in tension between Hindus and Muslims (in particular) in India makes religion a very important issue in Indian politics due to the need for the government to maintain stability in potential and actually volatile situations. The need for secularism of the government is paramount in order to avoid discrimination against any party, which could lead to a loss of support, as religious group unity is so strong. The nature of Hinduism itself somewhat curbs the increasingly strong Hindu nationalist movement, as the caste system disallows complete unity within the huge Hindu community. The caste system does however allow for dominace of certain more populous castes within Indian politics, due to issues of caste loyalty. The strength of religious and caste affiliation have tended to override interest-based politics which carry such weight in other countries: “Identities based on religion, caste and language have strong appeal and have challenged the ability of the political elite to manage them effectively.”

Although the major religious divide in India is that between the Muslims and Hindus, it is necessary to remember that other minorities carry politcal weight on a smaller scale: Christians and Sikhs also have their own affiliations, suffer discrimination and so on. Recently attacks on Christians and their churchs have become more common in India, although whether this is the work of Hindu extremists or not is under question. In summary, it can be said that religion is an important issue in Indian politics due to religious affiliation creating such strong groups, which often override interest based politics; and the presence of many different yet numerous religious groups means there is a conflict between these which both effects and is affected by the political arena.